the scriptures were translated into the vernacular idiom of the different nations, soon after their embracing the christian doctrine. There were, accordingly, Gothick, Frankish, or old German, Anglo-Saxon, and Sclavonick versions. In like manner, in the east, they had very early Syriack, Armenian, Arabick, Persick, Ethiopick, and Coptick. The same may be said of the divine offices, or prayers and hymns, used in publick in their churches. It is pretty evident, that for some centuries these were, in all the early converted countries, performed in the language of the people. But in the first ages there were no written liturgies.

Indeed, nothing can be more repugnant to common sense than the contrary practice. For if the people have any concern in those offices, if their joining in the service be of any consequence, it is necessary they should understand what is done in an unknown tongue, the praises of God, and the praises of Baal, are the same to them. In like manner, in regard to the reading of the scriptures, if the edification of the people be at all concerned, still more if it be the ultimate end, how can it be promoted by the barbarous sounds of a foreign or dead language? How can instructions, covered by such an impenetrable veil, convey knowledge or comfort, produce faith, or secure obedience? The apostle Paul, (1 Cor. xiv,) has been so full and explicit on this head, that it is impossible for all the sophistry, that has been wasted on that passage, to disguise his meaning from any intelligent and ingenuous mind.

"The church," says the Romanist, "by this averseness to change so much as the external garb, the language of the usages introduced soon after the forming of a christian so"ciety at Rome, demonstrates her constancy, and inviolable regard, to antiquity, and consequently ought to inspire us "with a greater confidence in the genuineness and identity of "her doctrine." But so far in fact is this from being an evidence of the constancy of that church, in point of doctrine, that it is no evidence of her constancy even in point of ceremonies. It is the dress, the language only, in which she has been constant, the ceremonies themselves have undergone great alterations, and received immense additions, (as those versed in church history well know) in order to accommodate them to the corruptions in doctrine, which, from time to time, have been adopted. Nor has it been the most inconsiderable motive for preserving the use of a dead language, that the whole service might be more completely in the power of the priesthood, who could thereby, with the greater facility, and without alarming the people, make such alterations in their liturgy, as should, in their ghostly wisdom, be judged proper.

It may at first appear a paradox, but on reflection is mani fest, that this mark of their constancy, in what regards the dead letter of the sacred ceremonies, is the strongest evidence of their mutability, nay, actual change, in what concerns the vitals of religion. Consider the reason why Latin was first employed in the Italian churches. It was not the original language of any part of sacred writ. They had the New Testament in the original Greek. There were also forms of publick prayer, or liturgies, in that language, before any appeared in Latin. What then could induce them to usher into their churches a fallible translation of the scriptures, in preference to the original, acknowledged to have been written by men divinely inspired, and consequently infallible? I ask this the rather, because the Romanist admits, that the original was written by inspiration. He agrees with us also, in not affirming the same thing of any version whatever. For, though the council of Trent has pronounced the Latin vulgate to be authentick, it has not declared it perfect, or affirmed that the translator was inspired. By the authenticity, therefore, no more is meant, in the opinion of their most learned doctors, than that it is a good translation, and may be used, by those who understand Latin, safely and profitably. But that this is not considered by themselves as signifying that it is totally exempt from errour, is manifest from this, that the criticks of that communion use as much freedom in pointing out and correcting its errours, as the learned of this island do, in regard to the common English version. I return to my question therefore, and ask the Italians, of the present age, Why did their forefathers, in the early ages, prefer a Latin version; a performance executed indeed by pious, but fallible, men, with the aid of human learning, to the Greek original, which they believed to contain the unerring dictates of the Holy Ghost? Why was not the latter read in their churches in preference to the former? The answer which they would return, or which at least their progenitors would have returned, is plain and satisfactory. "We do not dispute that the Greek was in itself "preferable; but to our people it was useless, because not "understood. Latin was their mother tongue. Much, there"fore, of the mind of the spirit they might learn from a good "Latin version, notwithstanding its imperfections. Nothing "at all could they acquire from hearing the sounds of a lan(6 guage with which they were unacquainted. And better, as "the apostle says, speak but five words with understanding, "that is, intelligibly, or so as to teach others, than ten thou"sand, in an unknown tongue, by which nobody can be "edified." Nothing can be more pertinent than this answer,

with which Paul has furnished us, only make the application to the case in hand. Latin is not now your native tongue. It is not at present the language of any nation or city in the world. Your people understand it no more now than they do Greek. If the Romans, sixteen hundred years ago, thought it necessary to reject the publick use of an infallible original, because unintelligible to the hearers, and to admit in its place a fallible version, because intelligible; and the Romans now refuse to reject one fallible version, that is become unintelligible, for another not more fallible, which may be understood by every body; can there be a stronger demonstration of the total difference of sentiments, in regard to religious worship in the present Romans, from the sentiments of their ancestors in those early ages? Can there, consequently, be a stronger demonstration of the truth of the paradox I mentioned, namely, that this mark of Roman constancy, in what regards the dead letter, is the strongest evidence of their mutability, nay, actual change, in what concerns the vitals of religion? Their ancestors considered religion as a rational service, the present Romans regard it merely as a mechanical operation. The former thought that the understanding had a principal concern in all religious offices: the latter seek only to attach the senses. With them, accordingly, the exercises of publick wor ship are degenerated into a motley kind of pantomime, wherein much passes in dumb show, part is muttered so as not to be audible, part is spoken or chanted in a strange tongue, so as not to be intelligible; and the whole is made strongly to resemble the performance of magical spells and incantations, to which idea, their doctrine of the opus operatum is wonderfully harmonized. But the smallest affinity to the devotions of a reasonable being to his All-wise and Almighty Creator, it is impossible to discover in any part of it. Well may we address them, therefore, in the words of Paul to the Galatians, "Oh! "infatuated people, who hath bewitched you; having begun "in the spirit, are ye made perfect by the flesh."

If any thing could be more absurd than worship in an unknown tongue, it would be the insult offered to the people's understanding, in pretending to instruct them by reading the scriptures to them in such a tongue. The people are thus mocked with the name of instruction without the thing. They are tantalized by their pastors, who give and withhold at the same time. They appear to impart by pronouncing aloud what they effectually conceal by the language. Like the ancient doctors of the Jewish law, they have taken away the key of knowledge: they entered not in themselves, and those that were entering they hindered. Ah blind guides! Unna

tural fathers! for you affect to be styled fathers, how do you supply your children with the food of their souls? When they ask bread of you, you give them a stone. They implore of you spiritual nourishment from the divine oracles, that they may advance in the knowledge of God, in faith and purity; and you say, or sing to them, a jargon, (for the best things are jargon to him to whom they are unintelligible) which may make them stare, or nod, but must totally frustrate their expectation. They starve, as it were, in the midst of plenty; and are shown their food, but not permitted to taste it. They seek to have their souls edified, and you tickle their ears with a song.

If witnesses were necessary to evince the contrariety of this their present practice to the intention of their forefathers, as well as the natural purpose of reading the scriptures in the congregation, I would ask no witness but themselves. They still retain a memorable testimony against themselves, in the form of ordaining readers enjoined in the pontifical, for with them this office is one of the minor orders. In the charge given to the readers by the bishop at their ordination, we have these words: "Studete igitur verba Dei, videlicet lectiones sacras distincte, et aperte, ad intelligentiam et ædifi"cationem fidelium, absque omni mendacio falsitatis proferre; ex ne veritas divinarum lectionum, incuria vestra, ad instruc❝tionem audientium corrumpatur. Quod autem ore legitis, "corde credatis, atque opere compleatis ; quatenus auditores "vestros, verbo pariter et exemplo vestro, docere possitis. "Ideoque, dum legitis, in alto loco ecclesiæ stetis, ut ab om"nibus audiamini et videamini." Instructions entirely appo site when they were first devised, for then Latin was their mother tongue; but which now can serve only as a standing reproach upon their practice, by setting its absurdity in the most glaring point of view. For what can it avail for the edification of the people, that the reader pronounces distinctly and openly, and stands in a conspicuous place, when he pronounces nothing but unmeaning words? Is this teaching them by word, verbo? Can this be called addressing the understandings of the faithful? Out of thy own mouth will I judge thee,' thou pageant of a teacher.

What shall we say of the power of prepossessions, when an abuse, so palpable, is palliated by such a writer as father Simon? I can bear to hear the most absurd things advanced by weak and illiberal minds. I can make great allowance for the power of education over such, and am led more to pity than to condemn. But it must awake real indignation, to see parts and literature prostituted to the vile purpose of defending

what the smallest portion of common sense shows at once to be indefensible, and giving a favourable gloss to the most flagrant abuses and corruptions. Simon acknowledges, (Hist. Crit. des Versions du N. T. chap. 1,) that when christianity was first planted, it was found necessary, for the instruction of the people, to translate the scriptures, especially the New Tes tament, into the language of each country that received this doctrine; and adds, that this remark must be understood as extending to the service performed in the churches, which, in those early days, was every where in the language of the people. The same thing, he affirms, cardinal Bona* had observed in his work upon liturgies. Now if the case was so, it will not be easy to account, without recurring to papal usurpations, for the uniformity in using Latin in all the publick offices of religion, that had been introduced, and actually obtained, through all the occidental churches, for ages before the reformation. Will Simon say, that Latin was the language of Britain for example, when christianity was first planted among the Britons; or, indeed, of any of the northern countries of Europe? So far from it, that, for the service of those countries, there were, by his own confession, translations made into Gothick, Anglo-Saxons, Frankish, Sclavonick, &c. Yet these versions (whatever they were formerly) are no where used at present, nor have they been used for many centuries, though fragments of some of them are still to be found in the libraries of the curious.

"Nothing," says Mr. Simon, "is more extravagant, than "what Pierre du Moulin has written on this subject against "cardinal du Perron. The end,' says this minister, which "the pope has proposed to himself, in establishing the Latin "tongue in the publick service, has been, to plant amongst his con quered nations the badges of his empire;' as if," subjoins Simon," it had been the popes by whom the Latin language "had been extended throughout all the west." Now to me

*Bona, however, does not say so much as seems here to be attributed to him by Simon. All that his words necessarily denote, is, that the apostles, and their successours, in converting the nations, taught the people, and officiated every where, in the idiom of the country. But this does not imply that they used, for this purpose, either a written translation of the scriptures, or any written liturgy. What he says afterwards, that in all the western churches they had no liturgy but in Latin, evidently implies the contrary. He knew well, that Latin was never the language of the people, in most countries of the western empire. Even in Africa, where, for manifest reasons, that tongue must have been much more generally spoken than in the northern parts of Europe, he acknowledges, on Augustine's authority, that it was not understood by the common people. "In Africa etiam Latinæ lin"guæ usus in sacris semper viguit, licet eam populus non intelligeret, ut Au“gustinus testis est.” L. 1, C. v. § 4.